@
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Sllanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE GR. No. 223103
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J,
Chairperson,
-versus- REYES, A. JR.,
HERNANDO,
INTING and
DELOS SANTOS, JJ.
FLORENTINO LABUGUEN y
FRANCISCO alias “Tinong,” and
ROMEO ZUNIGA' y PILARTA,
Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated:
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the March 25, 2015 Decision? of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04999 which affirmed with
modification the April 15, 2011 Decision? of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22 in Criminal Case No. 22-1647 finding
appellants Florentino Labuguen y Francisco alias “Tinong” (Labuguen) and
Romeo Zutiiga y Pilarta (Zuniga) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
‘The accusatory portion of the Information* reads as follows:
‘That on or about the 3" day of January, 2002, in the Municipality of
Delfin Albano, Province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
| Also spelled as Zuniga in some parts ofthe records,
“CA rolio, pp. 109-121; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia
‘Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Melchor Quirino C. Sadana,
4d. at 8-19; penned by Assisting Judge Conrado F. Manauis
‘Td. at 8-9,
Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by
~ADecision 2 G.R. No. 223103
of this Honortable Court, the accused Florentino Labuguen y Francisco alias
Tinong, Rodrigo Macalinao, and Romeo Zuhiga, together with John Doe
and Peter Doe, whose [identities] are still to be determined, conspiring,
confederating together and helping oue another, armed with a firearm and
pointed and bladed instrament, with intent to gain and by means of force,
violence and intimidation against persons, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, take{,] steal and bring away cash money in the
amount of P500,000.00 belonging to spouses Manuel Padre and Nenita
Padre, against their will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
‘owners, in the aforesaid amount of P500,000.00.
That during the commission and by reason of the said crime, the said
accused, to enable them to take, steal and bring away the said amount of
P500,000.00, with intent to kill and without any just motive, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and shoot with a
firearm Rhoda Padre and stabbed for several times the person of Manuel
Padre, Nenita Padre and Rachelle’ Padre, inflicting upon the said Rhoda
Padre, a gunshot wound on the chest which directly caused her death, upon
the person of Manuel Padre, stab wound on the face and on the neck which
directly caused his death, upon the person of Nenita Padre, a stab wound on
the thoracic area which likewise caused her death and upon the person of
Rachelle Padre, lacerated wounds on the right frontal area, on the right
orbital area, on the right parieto occipital area, on the right neck and on the
left chest, which injuries would ordinarily cause the death of the said
Rachelle Padre, thus, performing all the acts of execution which could have
produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but never|theless, did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will that is, by the
timely and able medical assistance rendered to the said Rachelle Padre,
which prevented her death.
‘That the said accused not being allowed [nor] authorized by law, to
Keep, possess and carry firearm and ammunitions, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in their possession and under
their control and custody the said firearm with ammunitions which they
used in robbing and shooting to death the said victims Manuel Padre, Nenita
Padre and Rhoda Padre.’
During the arraignment, accused-appellant Labuguen pleaded not
guilty. Accused-appellant Zufiga, however, initially entered a guilty plea
but later withdrew the same and accordingly pleaded not guilty. Accused
Rodrigo Macalinao (Macalinao) remains at large.
After the termination of the pre-trial conference,
trial on the merits
ensued.
The Facts:
‘The facts as summarized by the CA are as follows:
5 Also spelled as Rachel in some parts of the records,
®CA rollo, pp. 8-9.Decision 3) GR. No. 223103
On 3 January 2002 at about 7:30 in the evening, while spouses
Manuel Padre and Nenita Padre and their two daughters, Rhoda and
Rachel, were having dinner at their home at Villaruz, Delfin Albano,
Isabela, five (5) men suddenly barged in, one holding a firearm and one
with a bonnet with [a] hole showing the eyes only. Labuguen, [sic]
eniered first and pulled Rachel into the comfort room (CR), together with
her mother Nenita and sister Rhoda, who in turn were pulled by Macalinao
and by an unidentified man respectively. Manuel, on the other hand, was
brought to the store by an unidentified man. Nenita was then brought to
[the] Padre’s store while Rhoda and Rachel were left in the comfort room.
A few minutes later, Labuguen brought Rachel out of the comfort room
and she saw Zuniga, standing by the door of the store and Macalinao,
standing guard at the CR door and holding a gun, Upon reaching the
Gining area, Labuguen stabbed Rachel with a small knife on the left breast
and then Macalinao hit her on the forehead with the butt of a gun, causing
her to fall down, Then Labuguen strangled her and as she could not
remove his hands off her neck, she played dead. As soon as Labuguen
stood up and left, together with the other perpetrators, she immediately ran
for help to their neighbor Patricio Respicio (Respicio), who[,] together
with Alex Rodriguez, brought her to the hospital. At the hospital, she
Jeamed from her relatives that her parents and sister died on the night of 3
January 2002. Dr. Gambalan treated her serious injury on the leit chest
and less serious wounds on the head and abrasions on the neck.
Meanwhile, after Manuel closed the store and returned to the house,
Zuniga, upon the instruction of Joel Albano (Albano), hit {Manuel hard]
on the forehead, causing the latter to fall. Eric Madday, one of the five
men and who also used to work for Manuel Padte, boxed Nenita on the
abdomen and when Zuniga saw the chopping knife, he stabbed her at the
back. On the other hand, Rudy Macalinao shot Rhoda when she tried to
tun away. On the belief that all members of the Padre family were dead,
the group proceeded to Albano’s house, where Zuniga learned that they
got the money from the Padre family. He saw Albano {give] a bundle of
money to Rudy Macalinao. He left Delfin Albano, [sic] in Isabela and
went into hiding in Gerona, Tarlac on 7 January 2002,
Upon leaming of the incident from Kagawad Alex Rodriguez, the
police investigators went to the hospital on 4 January 2002 and
interviewed Rachel, who identified two of the perpetrators ~ Labuguen,
who happenfed] to be Padre family's longtime neighbor and who used to
work for them, and Macalinao, also one of the victims" helpers. At that
time, she purposely withheld the name of Romeo Zuniga, one of Padre’s
longtime customers, as she wanted him to reveal his companions. From
the hospital, the police proceeded to the crime scene, where they found
Manuel’s body near the store, Nenita’s body was recovered inside the
store while that of Rhoda was located inside the house. Rachel was
released from the hospital on 12 January 2002.
Labuguen was apprehended by the police on 4 January 2002, The
blood-stained jacket he was wearing during the custodial investigation was
submitted for serological examination at the PNP Crime Laborarory at
Camp Crame. The blood taken from Labuguen’s jacket tested positive for
human biood | ‘group A. As to Zuniga, Rachel decided to reveal his identity
as one of the five men who robbed and killed her parents and sister Rhody
to Fiscal Dalpig and later to Fiscal Torio, He was arrested in Gerona,Decision, 4 GR. No. 223103
‘Tarlac by the police operatives in 2006 and narrated to them the incident.”
(Citations omitted)
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
Based on the foregoing facts, the RTC* rendered its Decision’ dated
April 15, 2011 convicting the appellants as charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocination, the court
finds accused, Romeo Zuniga and Florentino “Tinong” Labuguen
“GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentences
them:
1. [T]o suffer each the penalty of reclusion perpetuar sind
2. [T]o pay solidarily Rachel Padre, the amount of P163,000.00 as
actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of
Manuel Padre; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of
Nenita Padre[:] and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death
of Rhoda Padre.
Considering that Rody Macalinao was not arrested and is still-at-
large, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued for his immediate
apprehension,
Meanwhile, let the records of his case, and, that of Peter Doe and
John Doe be senft] to the court’s archive to be revived once he is arrested
and Peter Doe and John Doe properly identified.
80 DECIDED.'*
Aggrieved, appellants filed a Notice of Appeal" which was given due
course by the RTC in its Order” dated May 4, 2011.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In a March 25, 2015 Decision," the CA affirmed with modification
the RTC ruling, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22 in Criminal Case No. 22-1647 finding the
accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with
Homicide and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellanis are
* CA roll, pp. L12-114.
5 Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela; penned by Assisting Judge Conrado F. Manaus.
? CA roll, pp. 8-19,
"id. at 18-19,
"14. at20,
ia at21,
"Td. at 109-121Decision 5 GR. No. 223103
ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Rachel Padre the amount of
75,000.00 [for] each vietim as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED."
Hence, this appeal.
This Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental
briefs if they so desire.'* However, both instead filed their Tespective
Manifestations'® stating that they will no longer file supplemental briefs
since they already exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their Briefs
filed before the CA.
Our Ruling
Appellants argue that the appellate court erred in not considering in
favor of appellant Zu‘iiga the exempting circumstance of “irresistible force
and/or uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.""” Zuftiga posits that
he “was compelled or forced at gun point by Joel Albano (Albano) to join
them in robbing the house of Manuel Padre, and if he will resist, something
bad will happen to him and his family.”"*
The contention fails to persuade,
To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish:
(1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and
imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be
of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape,!”
As correctly found by the RTC and the CA, Zuiliga is not entitled to
avail of this exempting circumstance. As noted by the CA, the malefactors
had a well-hatched plan to commit the crime of robbery with homicide and
that Zufliga was not only well-aware of every detail thereof but likewise
actively participated in its commission. As the CA found: “Verily, there was
no genuine, imminent, and reasonable threat to his life and his family as he
was an active participant in the commission of the crime charged. He acted
on his own free will and was not under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
as he claims.”” Moreover, as correctly argued by the Office of the Solicitor
General, Zufiga had every opportunity to escape while they were passing
through the comfields on their way to the Padre’s house. However, he did
"1d, at 120,
"5 Rollo, p. 19.
‘6d. at 25-29 and 30-34
"CA roll, p. 49.
'S Td. at 0.
1° People v. Baron, 635 Phil. 608, 624 (2010).
CA rollo, p. 118,Decision 6 G.R. No. 223103
not avail of the said chance.”' He did not perform any overt act to dissociate
or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the
commission thereof.” While he refused to kill Rachel, he nonetheless
delivered the fatal blow to Manuel’s head and stabbed Nenita at her back
using a chopping knife without any®prodding or compulsion from his
companions.”
Next, appellants aver that their identification by Rachel as the
perpetrators of the crime should not be given credence. They narrate that
Rachel did not immediately disclose their identities when she sought help
from their neighbor and that she only revealed their identities upon being
investigated by the police at the hospital. According to the appellants,
considering that she was suffering from a fatal wound and supposedly aware
of her impending death, it behooved upon Rachel to immediately disclose
the names of her assailants.2*
We are not convinced. As explained by Rachel, she did not
immediately reveal the identities of the assailants because she did not know
whom to trust after the harrowing experience5 She also averred that she
was hoping to solicit the help of Zufiga in divulging the names of his
accomplices.
Finally, this Court finds no merit in appellants’ argument that the
prosecution failed to prove the existence of conspiracy. As pointedly noted
by the RTC and the CA, it was shown that i
. They met
at the designated place; went together to the victims’ house wearing bonnets
and masks while armed with a gun, After the commission of the crime, they
again met at Albano’s house and divided the loot among themselves.
To sustain a conviction
lomicide, the prosecution must prove the following
tT; (2)
(3) «with the use of violence or intimidation against a
“cwith intent to gain;
person; and (4
certainty that the «obbery is the central purpose and objective of the >
for robbery wit
elements: (1.
Without doubt, all the elements of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
71d. at 90.
2d, at 90-91
2d. at 91
2 1d. at 52,
ta, at92,
* 1d. at 93,
* People v. Baron, supra note 19 at 617,Decision 7 GR. No. 223103
Incidentally, we note that the Information charged appellants with Robbery
with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. However, the Court ruled in
People v. Tidong, viz.:
There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and
double frustrated homicide. The offense should have been designated as
robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides or
injuries committed. These other felonies have, at the most and under
appropriate circumstances, been considered merely as generic aggravating
circumstances which can be offset by mitigating circumstances. The term
homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article 294 is used in its generic sense, that
is, any act that results in death. ing inure
If no death supervenes, the accused should be held liable
for separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide ot
murder (provided that there was intent to kill) if the latter offenses were
not necessary for the commission of the robbery, or for a complex crime
of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide or murder under Article
48 of the Code if the latter offenses were the necessary means for the
commission of robbery,
As regards the penalty imposed, we agree with the CA that the death
Penalty should have been imposed, if not for the proscription in Republic
Act No. 9346, since the crime was committed by a band and with the use of
an unlicensed firearm. Accordingly, appellants were correctly meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua but they are not cligible for parole. Moreover,
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,” the damages awarded must be further
modified as follows: The award of civil indemnity is increased to
P 100,000.00 for each victim, In addition, moral damages and exemplary
damages of P100,000.00 each for each victim are awarded. Finally, all these
damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum fiom
date of finality of this judgment until full payment.2°
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The’assailed March 25,
2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04999
finding accused-appellants Florentino Labuguen y Francisco alias “Tinong”
and Romeo Zufiiga y Pilarta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in. that
appellants are not eligible for parole. Appellants are further ordered to PAY
Jointly and solidarily P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages, and 100,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of each
victim. Finally, the damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full
payment.
28 296-4 Phil. 323, 339 (1993).
» People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil, 806, 850 (2016).
1a, at 854Decision 8 GR. No. 223103
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ESTELA ve resane
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
_—
wend COQ, INTING
Associate Justice
Associate JusticeDecision 9 GR. No. 223103
ATTESTATION
[attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ESTELA oh eouine
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section. 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I hereby certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice